Where Have All the Mitchells Gone? LT COL TIMOTHY E. KLINE , USAF

Lord, God of Hosts, my life is a stewardship in Your sight . . . I ask unfailing devotion to persona l integrity that I may ever r emain honorab l e without compromise.

From the Cadet Prayer USAF Academy

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 1997 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Where Have All the Mitchells Gone?

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air and Space Power Journal,155 N. Twining Street,Maxwell AFB,AL,36112-6026

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

8

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

70 AIRPOWER JOURNAL FALL 1997

THE LONE PORTRAIT leans for ward at the base of a raised platform where guests and staff take meals in ele­vated splen dor within the US Air Force Academy’s glass

and alumi num center piece, Mitchell Hall. The entire wing appears three times daily be-fore the stern glare of that leathery face, which, more than any other, is the face of air-power as cen dant—Ameri can air power. It is re-as sur ing to a budding genera tion of military-aviation special ists that things of the spirit can transcend ca reer con sid era tions—that na­tion and honor super sede the narrower traits of group confor mity and safety which mark the service man’s routine.

Wil liam “Billy” Mitchell seems an ironicpro fes sional focal point for a military service char ac ter ized today by careful manag ers on the leading edge of American technol ogy. Yet, each of the famous archi tects of the bright legend that spawned an inde pend ent US Air Force rode the shock wave of Mitchell’s defi ant vision. Henry “Hap” Ar­nold, Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, and Ira C. Eaker were famous disci ples of a combat leader whose cashiered career set in motion a tri­umph he would not live to see. He received the Medal of Honor post hu mously. In a lu cid piece recount ing the legacy in detail, Lt Col George M. Hall, US Army, wrote of Mitchell, “The indi vid ual who responds to the impera­tives of honor under circum stances when honor encom passes duty may be tempted to act against the grain of duty when it does notco in cide with the same impera tives.”1

Mitchell, in an Army uniform, cut across the grain of a tradi tion that consid ers “mili­tary indi vidu al ism” a poten tial spoiler of de­moc racy. Speaking inde pend ently, he pre ­cipi tated an expected reac tion by the in sti tu tional lead er ship of the older serv ices.2

Prof. Stanley Falk, in exam in ing the “appar­ent in com pati bil ity” of the national predi lec­tion for mili tary lead ers who are in de pend ent

he roes while at the same time opera tives in a “precise bureau cratic impera tive,” deter-mined that “indi vidu al ized values are a threat to the en tire range of tra di tional mili­tary norms.”3 Mitchell was the upshot, de-lib er ately and quite le giti mately dis patched by a military tribu nal that recog nized him as a threat to its order and stabil ity. Yet, he looms large at the Academy, where a thou-sand and more forma tive minds can collec­tively consider his compel ling gaze and re­flect that rugged counte nance. What must the enshri ne ment of such a noble man mean to young people still being nurtured on the rudi ments of airpower? Should theyin cline themselves to emulate the princi­pled perform ance of that exem plar? Could they succeed by doing so?

As it fell from Eli jah to El isha, so the man tle of Mitchell passed smoothly to the next gen­era tion of airmen. The people who witnessed his banish ment to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, his rever sion to the rank of colonel, the dra­matic court- martial, and his res ig na tion, werear dent personal boosters. They had stood by Billy Mitchell despite threatened careers. Ar­nold, Spaatz, Eaker, and even Mitchell’s im­me di ate boss, the saga cious Mason Patrick, backed him fully.4 Arnold won five stars. Spaatz and Eaker launched an air war in Europe that fi nally set the Air Force free. Theirmen tor’s words became their own words. “Wars will be won or lost with the mili tary ca­pa bil ity possessed when war starts,” echoed Eaker.5 “The na tion that hangs its des tiny on a false prepara tion will find itself hopelesslyout classed from the begin ning,” Mitchell warned long before.6 The fruitful ness of that first wave of Mitchell adher ents was impres­sive: the combined bomber offen sive was their unique achievement. But how potent is that impulse in the Air Force today?

Mod els of suc cess in the new Air Force tend to be mana ge rial. Cau tion is in the wind. Eve­ry one knows that courage can boost a career only so high. Robin Olds and Charles

This arti cle first appeared in Air Univer sity Review 33, no. 4 (May–June 1982): 28–32.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE MITCHELLS GONE? 71

Billy Mitchell.

72 AIRPOWER JOURNAL FALL 1997

“A Billy Mitchell every now and then would provide just the right flavor to make service life more savory.”

“Chuck” Yeager are handy exam ples of such eclipsed glory. They shone brightly, served rather long, and were quietly dismissed by fiat. They were good, solid heroes who each got a star, as Mitchell did, but they went home to intact legends, books, talk, conven­tions, and memory. Of course, they balked at times, but neither one was pressed by honor to lift the ban ner of na tional un pre par ed ness, as Billy Mitchell was. Theirs was another call­ing. They re tain use ful per sonal im ages of im­mense benefit to a service that must still jus­tify its exis tence by wielding a glitter ing sword borne up on wings by men of bone and blood.

The appar ent dichot omy of the Air Force lead er ship ideal is strange. The of fi cer corps is bound by an effec tive ness rating system that em pha sizes careful husband ing of resources over boldness; it values caution over ardent

spirit or daring inno va tion. Indi vidu als occu­py ing of fi cer bil lets must won der whether thefa mil iar Mitchell image is a valid behav ior model or whether it is a warn ing that out spo­ken ness will bring swift and sure ret ri bu tion.

Since Mitchell, no dissent ing military leader has suffered or, for that matter, has been offered the forum of a public court-martial.7 Mod ern gen er als are kept in line by a tight infringe ment of First Amendment freedom- of- speech rights. Free expres sion of ideas among military men is under stood to dis turb civil ian control. Maj Felix Moran, com ment ing on the case of Maj Gen John K. Sin glaub, US Army, Re tired, noted, “When ci­vil ian suprem acy has actu ally been at stake, ad min is tra tive ac tions, such as re moval, re as-sign ment, and forced retire ment have been taken against the er rant of fi cer” in lieu of rig-or ous enforce ment of Arti cle 88, Uniform

WHERE HAVE ALL THE MITCHELLS GONE? 73

Code of Military Justice, concern ing prohi bi­tions of free speech.8

The general-officer envi ron ment now seems so politi cally precari ous that most senior offi cers must feel wholly submerged in a pervad ing atmos phere of intimi da tion. Mau reen Mylan der exam ined this situation with bemuse ment in The Gener als: Making It, Mili tary Style . Later she would write, “It took me some time to dis cover that be neath the fa­cade of ‘s upreme power,’ gen er als them selves act more like frightened little boys than the con spira to rial heav ies of Seven Days in May .”9

What is it that emascu lates modern leader-ship? Blame an inor di nate fear of outspo ken­ness or con tro versy, other gen er als with more stars, and civil ian bosses who, “even on a whim, can pack a hap less gen eral off to Camp Swampy where, like General Half track, he will wait month af ter month fo r the mes sage the Penta gon will never send.” 10

In stead of simpli fy ing military life and stream lin ing military mores, the impact of bur geon ing avia tion and elec tronic tech nolo­gies has brought in creas ing com plex ity to theem ploy ment of airpower. Force appli ca tion, like the enforce ment of disci pline, has suf­fered from “greater reli ance on expla na tion, ex per tise, and group consen sus”1 1 as the Air Force moves farther and farther from the domi nance of authorita tive leader ship. Per-haps the trend to less per sonal, less vivid lead­er ship was inevi ta ble. Yet, the old or der gives way grudgingly. We want to stick with com­fort able im ages. Small things such as col or fulnick names brand the halcyon days of that past with a certain bright distinc tion. Why don’t we la bel mod ern lead ers with af fec tion­ate tabs like “Tooey,” “Hap,” or “Jimmie”? What about “Possum” Hansell and “Rosie” O’Don nell?12 Is it pos si ble the pres ent gen era­tion brooks no affec tion for authority un til it proves wor thy of ad mi ra tion in com bat? Was it only the infu sion of civil ian recruits on a mas sive scale in World War II that boosted in-for mal ity in such a pronounced way? None -the less, they were good times for airmen.

Per haps it is sympto matic that we seem to re vere our leaders less and ac cuse them of far more dis tance from re al ity than they de serve.

It may well be true, as Col Robert D. Heinl Jr. ob served, that “the uniformed services today are places of ag ony for the loyal, si lent pro fes­sion als who dog gedly hang on and try to keep the ship afloat.”13 If so, the patient per formance of duty that marks the modern hier ar chy is most praisewor thy. Still, a Billy Mitchell

The officer corps is bound by an effectiveness rating system that emphasizes careful husbanding of resources over boldness; it values caution over ardent spirit or daring innovation.

every now and then would provide just the right flavor to make service life more savory. The large, relatively docile offi cer corps yearns for a cause célèbre to forge a renewed com mit ment to airpower, amid all the prom­ise those color ful words portend.

The Air Force desper ately needs a new Mitchell—not to do battle with the estab lish­ment but to pro vide a vi sion for air pow er’s fu­ture. This need surpasses the require ment for an other itera tion of computer chips and reaches well beyond bean-counting exer cises to deter mine new life expec tan cies for tired air frames. The sober ing real ity of knee-jerkre ac tions to succes sive revela tions of Soviet weap onry has be numbed us all. It is time for a vi sion ary—maybe even a prophet. Someone must articu late a direc tion for the Air Force from within its most vital constitu ency—theof fi cer corps. We have rested too long on the pen of Ira C. Eaker. He has been the most widely read airman. He spoke when no one else would speak. His scenario for the future was bleak, pending emergence of a will to con tend:

One day, over the hot line from Moscow, may come this message to our commander in chief in the White House: “Mr. President, we order you not to interfere with our operations against Israel. Obviously, you will comply, for your own chiefs of staff will confirm that we have

74 AIRPOWER JOURNAL FALL 1997

“Models of success in the new Air Force tend to be managerial. Caution is in the wind.” Where would air refueling be today if General Spaatz had been a “managerial” type?

overwhelming military superiority!” If present conditions continue much longer, no president of the United States will have any option but to comply with that ultimatum, amounting to surrender.1 4

Gen eral Eaker and company won a costlycom bat victory that provided a place in the sun for airpower. Why has the burden of spokes man been thrust on such a valiant standard- bearer for so long? Peo ple who havefol lowed his words in critical edito ri als over the years may real ize now how bold each stroke has been. One should not dis count his warn ings because he issued them from the safety of retire ment; rather, one should re­mem ber Mylan der’s caution about gener als:

Ultimately he will fade into retirement where—under Title 10, Section 888 of the U.S. Code, threat of court-martial and loss of retirement pay—he will be forbidden to use “contemptuous words” in speech or print against the President, Vice-President, Congress, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of a Military Department, Secretary of the Treasury, or the governor or legislature of any state.1 5

Ad mir ing the sagac ity and skill of American air pow er’s foremost spokesman comes easy.

Are all the doors of military opin ion sealed by the cau tion of ca reer ism? The few at tempts by offi cers on active duty to counter corporate- style logic or challenge the inco­her en cies of civil ian control have met dismal fates. One of the most poignant of these was an Air War College comman dant’s at tempt to

ex am ine criti cally, in a fo rum that os ten si blypro tected his remarks with a nonat tri bu tion pol icy, the folly of high- level man age ment of the air war in Vietnam. Sadly for Maj Gen Jerry D. Page, re marks to a closed pro fes sional audi ence proved just as damn ing as a let ter to a left-wing daily.16 He nearly disap peared, ex­cept for the Pueblo inci dent. During that drama, he emerged briefly as a minor but posi tive ac tor. His mem ory sounds a warn ing Klaxon to incipi ent free speakers.

A number of surveys were proffered in the last decade to Air Force Academy graduates elect ing to depart active duty for the allures of the civil ian market place. Not the least of their regis tered complaints involved the in­teg rity of Air Force command ers.17 Some ob­serv ers have suggested that these young offi­cers were too easily dismayed by a rigid out look on offi cer ship produced by four years of training un der the Acade my’s Honor Code. Such inti ma tions miss the mark widely. In a time of general adher ence to situa tional ethics, it is not surpris ing that many command ing offi cers do succumb to dis turb ing socie tal norms that the youngAcad emy graduates find abhor rent. Repug­nance for unethi cal behav ior is matched, how ever, by dis gust with ram pant toady ism.

Hav ing sat through all those Walter Cronkite–nar rated airpower films as “doolies,” the cadets expected to find a sense of profes­sional cer tainty in the real Air Force. Mitchel­lism had been a daily fare. To discover that those few in the offi cer corps who most nearly epitomized that ideal were often sub­jected to close scrutiny and low effec tive ness rat ings must have pro voked a ter ri fic re ac tion in many of the most ideal is tic neophytes. Their pressing question was not “Why are there so many toadies in the service?” They were far more likely to ask, “Where have all the Mitchells gone?”

Those who serve know how impor tant a sin gle, galva niz ing offi cer of vision and

WHERE HAVE ALL THE MITCHELLS GONE? 75

The Air Force desperately needs a new Mitchell—not to do battle with the establishment but to provide a vision for airpower’s future.

integ rity can be in moti vat ing a person’s career. Many even know a budding Mitchell, Spaatz, or Eaker. But how confi dent are we that such an offi cer will survive, when the slight est di ver gence can de rail a ca reer? The Air Force must preserve a way to the top that permits room for its prophetic nobil ity to take a stand, suffer a shootdown, and rise like a Phoenix toward a vision like Mitchell’s. The alter na tive? No more Mitchells, no more Eakers, no more certain trum pet for airpow er.

76 AIRPOWER JOURNAL FALL 1997

Notes

1. Lt Col George M. Hall, “When Honor Conflicts with Duty,” Air University Review, September–October 1980, 46.

2. General Eaker wrote, “The fact is that General Mitchell welcomed the court-martial as it gave additional publicity to his cause, which was, of course, to obtain a separate Air Force.” Correspondence with author, 11 March 1981.

3. Stanley L. Falk, “Individualism and Military Leadership,” Air University Review, July–August 1980, 97.

4. Lt Gen Ira C. Eaker, USAF, “Introduction to Some Observations on Air Power,” speech, US Air Force Academy, 19 October 1978.

5. Ibid. 6. William Mitchell, Winged Defense (New York: G. P.

Putnam’s Sons, 1925), xv. 7. See Alfred F. Hurley,Billy Mitchell: Crusader for Air Power

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975). Hurley quotes Mitchell, who viewed his unprecedented trial as a “necessary cog in the wheel of progress, a requisite step in the modernization and rehabilitation of the national defense of the country” (page 105).

8. Maj Felix F. Moran, “Free Speech, the Military, and the National Interest,” Air University Review, May–June 1980, 109.

9. Maureen Mylander, “Fear of Generals,” The Nation, 12 April 1975, 429.

10. Ibid. 11. Morris Janowitz, “Prologue to the Second Edition of The

Professional Soldier,” Working Paper no. 176 (Chicago: University of Chicago, n.d.), 12.

12. See Bruce Callander, “The ‘Hap’less Nicknames Up in the Air,” Air Force Times, 9 March 1981, 20, for a marvelous sketch of endearing wartime personalities.

13. Col Robert D. Heinl Jr., “The Collapse of Armed Forces,” Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971, 30.

14. Eaker, speech. 15. Mylander, 429. 16. Maj Gen Jerry D. Page, correspondence with author, 20

April 1981. Hanson W. Baldwin drafted a full description of the impact of the dramatic incident for the New York Times, 27 January 1967, pages 1 and 3; 3 February 1967, page 34; 7 February 1967, page 25; and 17 February 1967, page 15. See also, U.S. News and World Report, 6 February 1967, 8l.

17. USAF Academy Alumni Association Graduate Survey, Check-Points, Fall and Winter 1980. Col Jock Schwank possesses a detailed compilation of the latest Alumni Association findings. In this regard, I suggest that interested parties contact the association.

I believe it is an estab lished maxim in morals that he who makes an asser tion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the acci den tal truth of the as ser tion does not justify or excuse him.

—Abra ham Lincoln